ORDER : The appellant was working as an officer of the Varada Grameena Bank (a Regional Rural Bank) constituted under the Rural Banks Act, 1976. On an allegation of not supervising the work of a Junior Clerk- V.S. Shetty who committed fraud in the Bank and misappropriation of the funds of the Bank causing loss to an extent of Rs. 29,13,092/-,the appellant was charge-sheeted. Those charges were found proved and the penalty of dismissal was imposed against him. On assailing the said penalty and the proceedings of enquiry before the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, judgment dated 27.03.2008 was passed in W.P. No. 38489/2001 sustaining the enquiry and penalty but the Single Judge of High Court found the penalty imposed by Disciplinary Authority is disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct, therefore, converted it into compulsory retirement, modifying the penalty of dismissal. 2. On filing an intra Court Appeal by the Bank, vide judgment dated 25.02.2011, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been setaside restoring the order of penalty of dismissal. Challenging the same, the delinquent employee has filed this appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has strenuously urged that the order impugned passed by the Division Bench setting aside the order of Single Judge is wholly unjustified. It is urged that there is no allegation of misappropriation or committing fraud against the appellant. It is only the lack of supervision on the subordinate staff who was working at the distance, which is not possible on day to day supervision. It is urged that for not supervising the work of any subordinate staff, the penalty of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate, therefore the order impugned may be set-aside and the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be restored. 4. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Bank has urged that it is a case in which the appellant being Manager has to supervise the work of the Junior Clerk, namely; V.S. Shetty, he has not acted upon his duties on regular basis which caused non genuine and fraudulent entries in the accounts of the depositors and misappropriation of money has been caused by the said Junior Clerk. If the appellant would have been vigilant, such misappropriation could be stopped. If the appellant would have been vigilant, such misappropriation could be stopped. Nothing has been pointed out by the appellant that there is any procedural shortcoming in the enquiry or material brought is not sufficient to prove the article of charges, therefore, interference may not be warranted. 5. After perusal of the record, we find that several charges have been levelled against the appellant. The main charges were that one V.S. Shetty, Junior Clerk working under his control at Karwar Branch during the period from 15.05.1995 to 04.08.1999 misappropriated the amounts by making non genuine and fraudulent transactions and entries in the accounts of the customers of the Bank causing financial loss and loss of trust & faith on bank by the customers. The Disciplinary Authority afforded due opportunity and found the article of charges are proved, however directed the penalty of dismissal against appellant. The order of penalty was challenged by filing the writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore which was decided vide order dated 27.03.2008. The learned Single Judge has not found any flaw in the procedure of enquiry and the article of charges were proved. The Single Bench only impressed on the fact that appellant was supervising the work of V.S. Shetty during the period from 1995 to 1999. In absence of any allegation of collusion, fabrication of documents, fraudulent act for misappropriation of fund by him, if any, act of dereliction in supervision may be a negligence act on his part to which penalty of dismissal is not justified. Thus, directed the Bank Authorities to modify the penalty of compulsory retirement. 6. The Division Bench by the impugned order, has considered that once the Bank has proved that appellant was negligent in supervising the work of V.S. Shetty during the period in which he was under his control, for any act of negligence in discharge of his duties, the appellant being the Manager of the Bank committed fault by not supervising the subordinate staff which lead to serious consequences. It is observed that the Bank Officers are required to exercise and follow the highest standards as they are dealing with the money deposits by their customers on faith of the Bank. It is observed that the Bank Officers are required to exercise and follow the highest standards as they are dealing with the money deposits by their customers on faith of the Bank. Therefore, the duties as discharged by the officers of the bank are required to be performed with utmost devotion and diligence for reposing trust on the bank, otherwise it is unbecoming to an officer. In this view, the Division Bench held that the penalty as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, modified by the learned Single Judge, is not shockingly disproportionate. 7. After having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the allegations as levelled against the appellant, it is apparent that he has not verified the genuineness of the debits of interest on deposit; not noticed the non genuine/fraudulent transactions; not verified or noticed the fraudulent/unauthorized alterations, inflating of the amounts; failed to check/verify vouchers, sub-Day Books, cash scrolls, Day Book, General Ledger and Trial Balance; failed to notice the crediting of the amounts to BCC and SB Heads. There were fraudulent reduction and defalcation of the balance under interest account, diversion of funds from interest income received by the Bank, fraudulent diversion of funds out of interest income received/receivable on the loan accounts. Therefore he has facilitated V.S. Shetty to commit such fraud resulting into mis-appropriation of money. The working of the Bank is required to be of the highest standards, otherwise, the trust and confidence reposed in the customers would be shaken. 8. In view of the foregoing, the article of charges levelled against the appellant has been proved considering the cogent evidence brought on record. There is no procedural irregularity while holding the departmental enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of the material brought in enquiry, rightly recorded a finding proving charge levelled against the appellant. In the facts of the present case, in our view, the penalty of dismissal is not shockingly disproportionate. Therefore, we do not find any perversity in the impugned order passed by the Division Bench warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly dismissed. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.